Saturday, September 11, 2010

Labor’s
laboring effort, by Claude Fischer: ...Historians and sociologists have
tried to figure out for many years now why union membership in the United States
is so low – now about one-eighth of the employed – compared to elsewhere in the
world and why it has dropped so far – down from about one-third in 1955. ...

The United States’ rate of “union density” ... is far below of that of most
western European nations (with the interesting exception of France) which range
from about 20% to about 60%. While union membership rates have been declining
there as well, the drop-off is not nearly as steep as here. ...

As the graph below shows, unionization leaped up during the Depression, New Deal
Era, and early post-war period. Since then, it has dropped steadily... Recent
studies point to a few key explanations for the precipitous drop in the last
half-century. One, clearly, is the ... disappearance of the blue-collar
industrial jobs that once spurred demand for unions... Another factor is
globalization – both U.S. manufacturers (and now service providers, too) moving
... to low-wage nations and workers from low-wage nations moving into the U.S.
economy. Although unions have had a few successes organizing a few immigrant
workers, for various reasons the immigrants are a hard-to-unionize work force.

Union density

Political constraints on unions have also become much more inhibiting over
recent decades. Starting with the end of the New Deal and intensifying with the
Reagan Administration in 1981, the rules on organizing and the regulatory
oversight of the workplace have made it harder to establish and sustain unions.
Also, decentralization in the United States ... allows states to set many labor
laws. The states with anti-union laws make it especially hard to unionize and,
by attracting business, undermine unionization in other states.

In Europe, union membership is often a routine, required part of getting a job
and unions have official or semi-official roles (along with associations of
employers) in national government... Such a central role for unions would be
hard to imagine in the United States. How come?

Why Weak Labor?

This question has perplexed scholars for over a century. Commonly called the
“Why No Socialism in America?” question...

The answers have been all over the board: American workers did not need to
organize because they flourished without unions; American workers were divided
by ethnicity and race in ways European workers were not; employers in the United
States were unusually powerful ... and got governments to crack down on
unions (the notorious cases involve state governors using the National Guard to
break strikes); the American dream of self-employment distracted workers; the
American electoral system prevented a labor party from growing; Americans’
individualism led them to reject collective action; and many more. ...

Gallup results. Dark green: approve; light green: disapprove

The political restraints on unions seem to be much harsher than Americans’
opinion about unions. As the Gallup Poll data shown here indicate, approval of
unions has slipped about 20 points since their heyday, but in the 2000s
Americans have been about twice as likely to approve than disapprove. Perhaps
there is something in our politics, as some analysts suggest, that have given
employers excessive clout in setting the rules.

Open and Closed

I want to add another consideration: It may not be American individualism that
resists unionization, but American voluntarism (as discussed in Made in
America). Unions face critical “free-rider” problems if membership is totally
voluntary. For example, I could benefit from the union’s effort to improve
working conditions at my workplace without paying dues...

To be effective, however, unions usually need some way to enforce or strongly
encourage membership and loyalty. The classic mechanism is the “closed” or
“union” shop... “Right-to-Work” laws in about half the states make such
union-employer contracts illegal... In Europe, as I noted, there are many
incentives to encourage or require union membership. ...

Americans have been celebrated for centuries as joiners of voluntary
associations. But that may be the kicker: the associations must be voluntary
associations... Perhaps, then, Americans are fine with unions – as voluntary
associations like churches or social clubs – but reject compulsory ones. And it
may be that unions cannot be really effective if the door to come and go is
really open. ...

Going back to the graph above, perhaps the great surge in unionization during
the middle of the 20th century was Americans’ emergency response to economic
collapse – a deviation from their typical practice. Then they started returning
to the cultural norm, an insistence on voluntariness. The current economic
crisis has not been deep enough – or perhaps not sufficiently exploited – to
spur another surge of counter-cultural unionization.

I am happy to stick with the explanation that "our politics ... have given
employers excessive clout in setting the rules." But if I were to go down the
path the author takes, I think I would attribute it more to our
desire for equal opportunity and fairness than our "celebrated" characteristic "as joiners of
voluntary associations."

Update: Also, I meant to ask: What caused the sudden decline in support for unions in mid 2000s? Disapproval jumped from around 30% to 45%, then fell back to 41%, and approval fell similarly.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why Has Union Membership Declined?

UC Berkeley's Claude Fischer on the decline of unions:

Labor’s
laboring effort, by Claude Fischer: ...Historians and sociologists have
tried to figure out for many years now why union membership in the United States
is so low – now about one-eighth of the employed – compared to elsewhere in the
world and why it has dropped so far – down from about one-third in 1955. ...

The United States’ rate of “union density” ... is far below of that of most
western European nations (with the interesting exception of France) which range
from about 20% to about 60%. While union membership rates have been declining
there as well, the drop-off is not nearly as steep as here. ...

As the graph below shows, unionization leaped up during the Depression, New Deal
Era, and early post-war period. Since then, it has dropped steadily... Recent
studies point to a few key explanations for the precipitous drop in the last
half-century. One, clearly, is the ... disappearance of the blue-collar
industrial jobs that once spurred demand for unions... Another factor is
globalization – both U.S. manufacturers (and now service providers, too) moving
... to low-wage nations and workers from low-wage nations moving into the U.S.
economy. Although unions have had a few successes organizing a few immigrant
workers, for various reasons the immigrants are a hard-to-unionize work force.

Union density

Political constraints on unions have also become much more inhibiting over
recent decades. Starting with the end of the New Deal and intensifying with the
Reagan Administration in 1981, the rules on organizing and the regulatory
oversight of the workplace have made it harder to establish and sustain unions.
Also, decentralization in the United States ... allows states to set many labor
laws. The states with anti-union laws make it especially hard to unionize and,
by attracting business, undermine unionization in other states.

In Europe, union membership is often a routine, required part of getting a job
and unions have official or semi-official roles (along with associations of
employers) in national government... Such a central role for unions would be
hard to imagine in the United States. How come?

Why Weak Labor?

This question has perplexed scholars for over a century. Commonly called the
“Why No Socialism in America?” question...

The answers have been all over the board: American workers did not need to
organize because they flourished without unions; American workers were divided
by ethnicity and race in ways European workers were not; employers in the United
States were unusually powerful ... and got governments to crack down on
unions (the notorious cases involve state governors using the National Guard to
break strikes); the American dream of self-employment distracted workers; the
American electoral system prevented a labor party from growing; Americans’
individualism led them to reject collective action; and many more. ...

Gallup results. Dark green: approve; light green: disapprove

The political restraints on unions seem to be much harsher than Americans’
opinion about unions. As the Gallup Poll data shown here indicate, approval of
unions has slipped about 20 points since their heyday, but in the 2000s
Americans have been about twice as likely to approve than disapprove. Perhaps
there is something in our politics, as some analysts suggest, that have given
employers excessive clout in setting the rules.

Open and Closed

I want to add another consideration: It may not be American individualism that
resists unionization, but American voluntarism (as discussed in Made in
America). Unions face critical “free-rider” problems if membership is totally
voluntary. For example, I could benefit from the union’s effort to improve
working conditions at my workplace without paying dues...

To be effective, however, unions usually need some way to enforce or strongly
encourage membership and loyalty. The classic mechanism is the “closed” or
“union” shop... “Right-to-Work” laws in about half the states make such
union-employer contracts illegal... In Europe, as I noted, there are many
incentives to encourage or require union membership. ...

Americans have been celebrated for centuries as joiners of voluntary
associations. But that may be the kicker: the associations must be voluntary
associations... Perhaps, then, Americans are fine with unions – as voluntary
associations like churches or social clubs – but reject compulsory ones. And it
may be that unions cannot be really effective if the door to come and go is
really open. ...

Going back to the graph above, perhaps the great surge in unionization during
the middle of the 20th century was Americans’ emergency response to economic
collapse – a deviation from their typical practice. Then they started returning
to the cultural norm, an insistence on voluntariness. The current economic
crisis has not been deep enough – or perhaps not sufficiently exploited – to
spur another surge of counter-cultural unionization.

I am happy to stick with the explanation that "our politics ... have given
employers excessive clout in setting the rules." But if I were to go down the
path the author takes, I think I would attribute it more to our
desire for equal opportunity and fairness than our "celebrated" characteristic "as joiners of
voluntary associations."

Update: Also, I meant to ask: What caused the sudden decline in support for unions in mid 2000s? Disapproval jumped from around 30% to 45%, then fell back to 41%, and approval fell similarly.